"it is universities themselves that have undermined the worth of the education..."

[hadsed]

<p>

hadsed - your comment was unnecessary.

Why? Everyone knows the stereotype, and if you or your kid doesn’t fit the stereotype then obviously it doesn’t apply to you, even if you (or your kid) do/does major in business. Some people just look to be offended… sheesh.</p>

<p>

He’ll get by OK because of his connections, not because business is “easy.” Networking matters and perhaps especially so for business majors. Employers didn’t seem to care that I had a 4.0 GPA. To be clear, I was not expecting a job because of my GPA, but I was expecting more than two interviews. By contrast, I saw many other students with GPAs far lower who easily obtained internships and jobs through their Greek connections.

You’re probably more right than I am about the connections bit. Still, I know some of my friends who go to pretty good business schools and they find it really easy (the classes anyway), and I’ve seen some of the work they have to do so I can judge a small bit for myself. And most schools aren’t in the “good” category. There’s a reason why business is such a huge percentage of undergrad majors… and part of it is because it’s not difficult.</p>

<p>

@fabrizio

Programming is an integral component of any CS curriculum, but programming is not CS. Several of my high school classmates mistakenly thought that and were forced to switch majors when they found that CS really is a branch of mathematics. Their coding was fine, but they couldn’t survive the basic math courses.

Yeah, but in the first year it is mostly programming courses in CS, so it makes sense that if he were programming from such a young age that he’d breeze by the courses without much effort.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>Fascinating discussion with lots of great points of view, posters. </p>

<p>As for college being a filter for those with a basic work ethic, I think that should have been accomplished by grade 12- agree with Fabrizio. But I may just be a goody two shoes!!
I remember oh too well how strange it felt way back when I was at an Ivy, watching so many brilliant students take advantage of the “Incomplete” option, often semester after semester. Quite a few students had a cart load of Incompletes to finish up in order to receive their diplomas Spring of Senior year (and some failed that, but were allowed to finish up after graduation and receive their diplomas by mail)… I was shocked at this lack of work ethic, and at how the college supported this activity. I also felt that grades were invalid if the amount of time allowed to complete the work was infinite…</p>

<p>So college is a time of experimentation as well as testing, both. It really is NOT a work-place at all. It is a transition to adulthood and the real world and making money somehow, which can involve meeting people, practicing a set of skills, learning more skills, opening the mind to new ideas, creating things, becoming more responsible… It is an incubator of people with certain projects to complete/courses, plus an infinite number of other activities. Some stay on the linear path; others take a random or more creative approach. Students are allowed to have any number of priorities: academic, research, social, networking, art, athletic, pre-professional, entrepreneurial, social service.</p>

<p>That said, I am really glad the questions are being asked: why is this getting so expensive? what is college for? should everyone aspire to going to college? how pre-professional should college be? should there be other options as ways for 18 years olds to “grow up”? should apprenticeship, gap years, free-form timing be options? or even mandatory?</p>

<p>I always feel when I visit colleges that “college is wasted on the young!” These kids have NO idea how incredible this opportunity is! Most are not really ready to take advantage of all that is there. But perhaps that is not the point- that such a rich environment is to stimulate the students to reach, grow, achieve, learn, aspire, organize, create as they mature???</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>Gosh, shouldn’t those all have been learned from K-12?<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Of course they should have. But so often kids in pubic K-12 schools are kept in school and passed along to the next grade no matter how dismal their performance or even how disruptive they may be in class. Thus a high school diploma has lost pretty much all its value as a signal of achievement or work ethic.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

But so often kids in pubic K-12 schools are kept in school and passed along to the next grade no matter how dismal their performance or even how disruptive they may be in class. Thus a high school diploma has lost pretty much all its value as a signal of achievement or work ethic.

</p>

<p>Hence the phrase “college is the new high school” and its more recent adaptation “grad school is the new college”?</p>

<p>“Obama’s dream of universal higher education,” as Riley stated, should not be pursued to the extent that “college is the new high school.” Holding constant the current state of college education, “universal higher education” would just mean a nation whose achievement, on average, was no better than that of their grandparents (presumably back when a high school diploma did serve as a signal of achievement or work ethnic).</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Even if you saw no other value in a college education, that by itself is a pretty good reason for getting a degree - to signal to prospective employers that you are not part of the poor work ethic crowd.</p>

<p>A college degree, however grade-inflated it may be or however irrelevant the major, is documented evidence that the person can at least show up, follow directions, and put in a sustained effort over a long period of time - all of which are valuable work traits.

</p>

<p>I certainly agree that it is indeed used as a signal: a signal that employers obtain for free, with the costs offloaded to the students. After all, employers don’t pay the costs of education, except only indirectly through higher corporate taxes to support state subsidies. So it’s obviously a fantastic deal for them.</p>

<p>But it’s not a fantastic deal at all for the students, as they have to bear the costs of sending the costly signal. </p>

<p>A far more equitable system would be one in which employers should have to pay for the costs of that signal. After all, they’re the ones who are using the signal. Then we could efficiently attach a true market price to the value of that education.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

If this were true then why didn’t they use a non-fictional example? Do you know something about Harvard’s CS program? Does the author of this article know something they held out on saying? Please, give me actual evidence, not something you noticed in a movie or conclusions made about a list Playboy makes.</p>

<p>Are you just trying to play devil’s advocate or do you actually believe that it’s appropriate to use “The Social Network” as evidence of deteriorating educational standards?

</p>

<p>It is appropriate to use ‘The Social Network’ not because anybody takes it to be a documentary, but simply as a frame around which to build the discussion. After all, many people have seen The Social Network, and those who haven’t can rent it at any time. By the same token, it is entirely appropriate to foster a discussion about organized crime by talking about the Godfather movies, not because anybody actually believes that those movies are documentaries, but that at least people have seen those movies and can then base their discussion around them. </p>

<p>To use a nonfictional example would be extraordinarily difficult because few if any people would understand what you are talking about. After all, only a handful of people actually know the true Zuckerburg. Starting a discussion about his real life would be exceedingly difficult because nobody would have anything to say because they wouldn’t understand the subject matter. </p>

<p>

What the author wrote about Zuckerberg was not well-thought. She seems unaware that you have to spend a lot of time programming just to learn it, and even more to create a functioning networking site. Did she know that he has been programming since well before college, making him skilled in the subject? Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that he did well in his CS classes.</p>

<p>She asks, “Why pay to be at Harvard if [spending time in your dorm programming is] what you’re going to do?” He’s applying what he has learned to the world even before graduation. Isn’t that what college is about?</p>

<p>Lastly, she thinks the time he spent was a waste of time. Perhaps college was at least partially a waste, considering that he dropped out. But all the hours he spent programming did yield results.

</p>

<p>I’m not sure I understand this point, as if anything, you seem to be supporting the author’s arguments. After all, you said yourself that Zuck was a well-established programmer even before he entered Harvard. So then what exactly did the Harvard educational experience add to his skillset? Not much, it would seem. Let’s face it - if Zuck had never entered Harvard (or any other college for that matter), he would still be a cracker-jack programmer. </p>

<p>On the other hand, what Zuck did apparently gain from Harvard was the inspiration (or perhaps even the stolen idea) for creating Facebook in the first place. But that again seems to reinforce the author’s central point, as those activities were not part of the Harvard educational experience, strictly defined, but were rather part of the Harvard extracurricular milieu. In other words, colleges - at least the top ones - are more valuable for their social environment rather than the education per se. </p>

<p>

But that likely does not tell us what we want to know, for it includes a selection bias term. (sakky probably knows that I based that on Angrist and Pischke.)

</p>

<p>Econometrics is actually mostly harmful, no matter what A&P would have you believe. </p>

<p>But to continue the A&P train of thought, that’s when you would start looking for good instruments in order to apply a Heckman correction. Or maybe try a matching model.</p>

[SaintSaens]

<p>

I’m not sure I understand this point, as if anything, you seem to be supporting the author’s arguments. After all, you said yourself that Zuck was a well-established programmer even before he entered Harvard. So then what exactly did the Harvard educational experience add to his skillset? Not much, it would seem. Let’s face it - if Zuck had never entered Harvard (or any other college for that matter), he would still be a cracker-jack programmer.

</p>

<p>I was a little incoherent there, so I’ll clarify. The author says that Harvard was a waste of time because Zuckerberg spent a large portion of his time outside of class programming, which I do not think is true.</p>

[OlympicLady]

<p>Is the author using the movie Social Network to make her point or the real Zuckerman? Quick wiki search confirms Zuckerman graduated from Exeter with a classics degree. Zuckerman was a programing prodigy and his father had him tutored/mentored early on outside of school, well before entering Harvard. He is known to quote poems from the classics during conversations. I think it is safe to say even though he dropped out of Harvard, his private school education did the job nicely. </p>

<p>The problem with the college degree today is not addressed by using Zuckerman as an example. However, I think we all feel there is a problem in our educational system. Under prepared High School students continue on to be under prepared college graduates in a mediocre system. In California, the % of remediation in math and English in the State College and the UC system is staggering. Why? Because students are accepted from lower performing high schools unprepared for college work, as compensation for not providing an adequate state k-12 education. Go fix the k-12 public education and strictly enforce all remediation will be done at the CC level. Until this is done in California, the CSU and increasingly the UC degree will be perceived by employers as a high school diploma substitute. So, now you need a Graduate degree to signal a decent educational level. Will we see remediation in the Graduate school level soon, to compensate and do social engineering? I think so.</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>I certainly agree that it is indeed used as a signal: a signal that employers obtain for free, with the costs offloaded to the students. After all, employers don’t pay the costs of education, except only indirectly through higher corporate taxes to support state subsidies. So it’s obviously a fantastic deal for them.<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Are you suggesting that employers reimburse the newly-hired employee for whatever s/he spent of earning a college degree? Wow, if you think it’s tough for the new graduate to land that first job today, just think how much tougher it would be if hiring him/her came with an average of >$100,000 price tag for the privilege. Hiring say ten new employees would cost a company a million bucks before even one day’s work was completed. Hiring new graduates fresh out of college would become a thing of the past.</p>

[coolweather]

<p>This is real Mark Zuckerberg’s Harvard application:</p>

<p>[this</a> is what facebook does to you every day - Blogging Beirut - the Other Lebanon](<a href=“http://www.bloggingbeirut.com/archives/1179-this-is-what-facebook-does-to-you-every-day.html]this”>http://www.bloggingbeirut.com/archives/1179-this-is-what-facebook-does-to-you-every-day.html)</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Are you suggesting that employers reimburse the newly-hired employee for whatever s/he spent of earning a college degree? Wow, if you think it’s tough for the new graduate to land that first job today, just think how much tougher it would be if hiring him/her came with an average of >$100,000 price tag for the privilege. Hiring say ten new employees would cost a company a million bucks before even one day’s work was completed. Hiring new graduates fresh out of college would become a thing of the past.

</p>

<p>In the past, when a college education was far less prevalent and many decent jobs were open to people who didn’t have such an education, the notion that potential employees would be the ones to have to be stuck with the costs of college as a job market signalling device - with zero guarantee that they would even obtain a job at all - while employers are able to reap the benefits without paying a dime into the efforts would surely be considered not only ludicrous but even deeply politically provocative and outrageous. If such a system had been seriously proposed in the past, the nation might have turned socialist in an effort to rein in rapacious companies who would have the chutzpah of offloading a 6-figure price tag onto the backs of regular people just to be eligible to get a decent job. </p>

<p>The only reason why we are not outraged by such a system today is that we grew up in it and therefore are accustomed to its sheer inequities. People have resigned themselves to the notion that they must pay a small fortune just to be eligible for a decent job and that companies should not be asked to share any of the burden whatsoever. Companies have therefore won by ‘stealth’. </p>

<p>Now, to be clear, I am not proposing that companies pay the full price of the college degree of every degree starting from day one. I could envision a pro-rated payout policy depending on how long you employ the person, i.e. a 10% payout for each of the first 10 years that the employee is in the workforce. (Presumably after 10 years of experience, the employee no longer needs to rely on the college degree as a signal). Probably an even more workable solution is through an overall corporate excise tax, with the funds specifically earmarked to pay for student grants (i.e. Pell) and other student financing.</p>

<p>But the bottom line is, if you think my suggestions to be outrageous, just consider how outrageous the current system is now. If we were to build the system today, would anybody seriously suggest that companies should pay absolutely nothing - offloading the costs to the students - while reaping all the benefits? Yet that’s what’s happening now.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I was a little incoherent there, so I’ll clarify. The author says that Harvard was a waste of time because Zuckerberg spent a large portion of his time outside of class programming, which I do not think is true.

</p>

<p>I’m afraid that I still have to side with the author. Zuck spent plenty of time outside of class programming. Hence, that highlights the lack of value and rigor that those classes - or at least any CS classes - that those classes entailed. If those classes required extensive workloads, then frankly, Zuck would not have had the time to start Facebook. He would have had to withdraw. </p>

<p>Presumably, college students are immersed within their studies and have little time to pursue other activities (and they should also not want to pursue other activities as they would be infatuated with whatever they are studying). We know this is far from the truth. With the exception of highly technical majors such as engineering, most college courses of study require relatively little work to just pass, leaving students with ample time to pursue other activities, such as starting their own companies. {Note, you may have to work hard to get top grades, but if you’re satisfied with merely passing, you will be left with ample amounts of leisure time.} The hardest part of Harvard or most other top schools is simply getting admitted; once you’re in, you can graduate with relatively little effort.</p>

[SaintSaens]

<p>Should we really assume that the coursework was not challenging in this case? Perhaps Zuckerberg simply was ahead of the curriculum, particularly considering that he made many practical applications of his knowledge at his time at Harvard (although Facemash wasn’t particularly practical). I don’t view these accomplishments as failures of the curricula, considering that you’re supposed to apply your knowledge to the world (if you don’t, then college really was a waste of time).</p>

<p>

Presumably, college students are immersed within their studies and have little time to pursue other activities (and they should also not want to pursue other activities as they would be infatuated with whatever they are studying).

</p>

<p>This seems pretty unrealistic. Even people who are in love with academics like hobbies and extracurricular activities. People do these for interest, and not out of pure boredom (I’m excluding things done out of necessity, which are representative of other issues). Many colleges, particularly religiously affiliated ones, have other goals, often making certain extracurricular activities important for intellectual development. I’m also concerned about whether people think too much about “the experience”, but I don’t think that students having not even enough free time to pursue a hobby is the solution.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

I can see why there is grade inflation at those schools.

</p>

<p>[FAQ</a> - Office of the Dean of the College](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/odoc/faculty/grading/faq/]FAQ”>http://www.princeton.edu/odoc/faculty/grading/faq/)</p>

<p>Please get your facts straight.
Thank you.</p>

[Dad_of_3]

<p>

A far more equitable system would be one in which employers should have to pay for the costs of that signal. After all, they’re the ones who are using the signal. Then we could efficiently attach a true market price to the value of that education.

</p>

<p>This happens when the supply-demand situation is on the side of the employee. It’s not uncommon for a freshly minted doctor with loans to have it forgiven in return for several years of service at a location that has had problems attracting physicians.</p>

<p>One problem in forcibly pushing the cost of education on the employer (other than the obvious in further increasing the cost of labor) is that the student would have less of an incentive to make fiscally responsible decisions because someone else is picking up the tab. And schools that don’t particularly have a great track record for controlling costs will have even less of an incentive to do so.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Should we really assume that the coursework was not challenging in this case? Perhaps Zuckerberg simply was ahead of the curriculum, particularly considering that he made many practical applications of his knowledge at his time at Harvard (although Facemash wasn’t particularly practical). I don’t view these accomplishments as failures of the curricula, considering that you’re supposed to apply your knowledge to the world (if you don’t, then college really was a waste of time).

</p>

<p>In that case, Zuck could have presumably taken a more challenging curriculum. After all, Harvard offers a slew of graduate coursework in a wide range of technical topics. Harvard also offers full cross-registration with MIT, with its abundance of some of the most vaunted engineering coursework in the world. Even somebody as talented as Zuck could have surely found as much challenging coursework as his heart would desire. After all, there are certain notorious CS courses at MIT that have baffled even many of the best programmers in the world. </p>

<p>But he didn’t do that. That speaks to one the key issues of the article - many college students are frankly not really in college because of the curriculum. They are primarily there for the social environment, the networking, the brand name, and the extracurricular activities/hobbies. But not really for the educational curriculum. In other words, for many students, colleges are not really academic institutions but rather are merely modern-day finishing schools. </p>

<p>

This seems pretty unrealistic. Even people who are in love with academics like hobbies and extracurricular activities. People do these for interest, and not out of pure boredom (I’m excluding things done out of necessity, which are representative of other issues)

</p>

<p>They may engage in hobbies for interest but surely they don’t have time to essentially devote themselves fulltime to those interests. Or at least, they shouldn’t be. The first version of Facebook was officially founded in Feb 2004 and grew rapidly from that point onwards. But Zuck didn’t officially withdraw from Harvard until months later, despite the fact that he was basically working full-time on Facebook during that semester. </p>

<p>To put the situation in a starker light, Harvard is an elite university that presumably offers an elite educational experience. How many elite employers out there would allow an employee to basically slack off for months at a time without repercussions while devoting his true energies to what is supposed to be a personal hobby? You pull that stunt at an elite consulting or investment banking firm - which many Harvard graduates aspire to join - and you’ll be fired. </p>

<p>You might try to rebut that a job is not the same as attending college. That’s exactly right, and is precisely the point that the author of the article was making - that the college experience for too many students involves merely biding their time while putting in relatively little effort into their studies, as many college curricula are undemanding. As the author said: “Even a 40-hour workweek would be a step up from what many students are asked to do now.”</p>

[sakky]

<p>

One problem in forcibly pushing the cost of education on the employer (other than the obvious in further increasing the cost of labor) is that the student would have less of an incentive to make fiscally responsible decisions because someone else is picking up the tab. And schools that don’t particularly have a great track record for controlling costs will have even less of an incentive to do so.

</p>

<p>The idea would then be that employers - because they would now be paying - would them scrutinize to a far greater degree the types of education they would be funding. They might declare that they will fund certain types of education but not others. </p>

<p>But the problem as it stands right now as that employers are obtaining a sweet free ride on the backs of students and their parents. Employers pay none of the costs of the market signaling effects of college education, while reaping the benefits. Those who reap the benefits should pay the costs.</p>

[Laurelhurst]

<p>My impression was that Zuckerberg took a leave of absence from Harvard because he saw a great opportunity in Facebook, and never came back. Good decision, in retrospect. :)</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s a good example of what the writer is really talking about, which is students coasting through college because they just want a B.S. degree with as little effort as possible. That’s been a feature of college since there’s been college, as far as I can tell. I remember all those student dueling fraternities in places like Heidelberg, where the children of the aristocracy drank and fooled around and learned a little bit before becoming adults.</p>

[Brooklynborndad]

<p>first off, I am pretty sure Harvard DOES have core curriculum. Its not a specific set of courses like Columbia, but even way back around 1980 they were introducting a narrower set of choices than the old distribution requirements. I do not know what Zuckerberg took, but I suspect to take only courses that had little homework would have taken some intense degree of careful selection.</p>

<p>he also would have needed to pursue a major. I presume CS - which I presume he aced because he was good at it. </p>

<p>I can tell you that people do flunk out of harvard, and lots of other people work hard, as at all the Ivies and many other selective schools. Go to one, and check out the libraries on a Saturday night.</p>

[Brooklynborndad]

<p>"If we were to build the system today, would anybody seriously suggest that companies should pay absolutely nothing - offloading the costs to the students - while reaping all the benefits? Yet that’s what’s happening now. "</p>

<p>given a finite number of students who passed the filter, Im not sure the wages they receive dont actually involve a very considerable cost to employers to pay for the filter.</p>